Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89620 Case Number: LCR12648 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER LINGUS - and - FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim for payment of regular night roster duty allowance to clerical and supervisory grades in Flight Services, Operations Control and Cargo Departments.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
In the view of the Court it appears on the basis of equity there
is merit in the claim of the Union.
The Court is conscious however that there are aspects specific to
the clerical staff which need to be taken into account in order to
meet with the operational needs of the Company.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the Company and the Union
jointly examine the issue with a view to addressing in an
equitable manner the Union claim and the operational needs of the
Company.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89620 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12648
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AER LINGUS
AND
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for payment of regular night roster duty allowance to
clerical and supervisory grades in Flight Services, Operations
Control and Cargo Departments.
BACKGROUND:
2. Roster Duty Allowances (RDA's) for the clerical and
supervisory workers concerned are as follows:-
Early Night Regular Night Sunday Saturday Late
#7.95 #14.33 n/a #11.98 #7.74 #10.47
Aircraft Tradesmen and Aircraft Technical Supervisors in addition
to receiving similar RDA's also have a regular night roster duty
allowance of #27.12 and #27.67 respectively. The Union is
claiming that, due to the high incidence of nights worked clerical
and supervisory workers should also receive a regular night RDA,
on the basis that the regular night RDA's for craft workers is
interpreted as including five or more successive nights in any one
week with an interval of not more than eight weeks between each
period of nights. The Union position is that regular night RDA,
which it considers equivalent to T + .50, should be paid where:
(a) five successive nights are worked in any week and where
there is not more than an eight week interval between
such nights, or
(b) where the total number of night duties worked in the
year, albeit by means of different roster patterns, is
the same or more than (a).
This claim was rejected by the Company and its position is that
each department has its own arrangements. A local level meeting
took place on 20th June, 1989 and on 12th July, 1989 the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference took place on 11th August, 1989 at which
no agreement was reached and on 22nd August, 1989 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 6th October, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Several years ago, regular night duties for craft workers
attracted a premium equal to T + .50 and came to be interpreted
as including five or more successive nights in any one week
with an interval of not more than eight weeks between each
block of nights. Subsequently, on a section by section basis,
the operative grades agreement in the Company was interpreted
similarly. All ground categories of workers, except for
clerical and supervisory workers, who work five or more nights
in succession receive T + .50 or its equivalent, the regular
night RDA. A relatively higher number of night duties are
worked in the year by the workers concerned here when compared
with the liability of craft workers and other categories in
order to qualify for the regular night RDA. This RDA should
also therefore apply to these workers.
2. In July, 1971 the Labour Court recommended (LCR No. 2593
refers) that the same RDA's should be paid to the clerical
staff as applied to craft workers and in August, 1987
recommended (LCR No. 11359 refers) that assistant duty
manager's should receive the same payment for regular night
duties worked as their counterparts in the craft section.
There is no justification for the Company's refusal to pay the
regular night RDA to clerical and supervisory workers where
there is no difference in the night duties worked by them and
craft workers. The same degree of disturbance is involved in
rostered night duties, whether worked as five consecutive
nights in every eight week cycle or the same or a greater
number of night duties worked to a different pattern
throughout the year. The regular night RDA should be paid to
clerical and supervisory workers whose night duties fit the
existing criteria or when the same or a greater number of
night duties are worked over a year but not necessarily on
consecutive nights.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At the time that the aircraft technical supervisors and
tradesmen's agreements were negotiated, there was a need for a
significant amount of night duties on a non-rotating shift
roster. Due to the unsocial nature of such a work pattern, a
very high premium was agreed. Over the years the requirement
for continuous night duties reduced and different cycles were
introduced. In 1980 the night duty requirement was reduced
further and it was agreed to retain a regular night rate, in
certain circumstances, in exchange for particular concessions.
Each section/department has its own arrangements on night
duty. The workers concerned here receive extra compensation
for night work that is not available to technical workers. In
the Operations Control and Flight Services Departments extra
days off are granted after night duty and additional annual
leave days also accrue because annual leave days are taken
according to their roster cycle. Workers in the Cargo
Department receive either overtime at double time or two days
off for each Saturday worked.
4. 2. If the regular night payment was granted to supervisory
and clerical grades it would set a dangerous precedent, as
different conditions of employment apply to each category of
workers in the Company. As a result of the findings issued in
October, 1981, of a special committee on relativities
appointed by the Employer/Labour Conference, all categories of
workers in the Company were paid to terminate relativities
(details supplied to the Court). If this claim was conceded
there would be serious repercussive effects which would
inevitably extend to all clerical and supervisory workers and
to other technical workers. The cost of implementing the
regular night RDA to these workers would be approximately
#95,000 per annum. Night duties for clerical and supervisory
workers already cost the Company #100,000 per annum. The
claim is invalid and in the circumstances should not be
conceded.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
In the view of the Court it appears on the basis of equity there
is merit in the claim of the Union.
The Court is conscious however that there are aspects specific to
the clerical staff which need to be taken into account in order to
meet with the operational needs of the Company.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the Company and the Union
jointly examine the issue with a view to addressing in an
equitable manner the Union claim and the operational needs of the
Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
__17th__November,__1989. ___________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman